ends, since some argue that only modern states are sovereign, while others that all
states are sovereign. Does claiming a monopoly of legitimate force mean that this
monopoly endows the state with sovereignty?Sovereignty as a modern concept
It is argued by Justin Rosenberg, for example, that sovereignty only arises when
the state is sharply separated from society. His argument is that only under
capitalism, do we have a sharp divide between the public and the private, and this
divide is necessary before we can speak of the sovereign state (1994: 87).
Rosenberg takes the view that sovereignty is a modern idea just as the state is a
modern institution. F.H. Hinsley, on the other hand, argues that while the state can
be broadly defined as a modern as well as an archaic institution, sovereignty cannot,
since sovereignty requires a belief that absolute and illimitable power resides in the
‘body politic’ which constitutes a ‘single personality’ composed of rulers and ruled
alike (1986: 125). This means effectively that rulers and ruled must be deemed
‘citizens’ – a modern concept. Even the celebrated theory of Jean Bodin’s
(1529/30–1596) – that sovereignty is unconditional and unrestrained power – is,
for Hinsley, undermined by the assumption that the holder of sovereignty is limited
by divine and natural law. With Hobbes, however, law in all its forms is the creation
of the sovereign, so that there is no distinction to be made between sovereign and
subject. The sovereign is simply the individual writ large.
In Hinsley’s view, therefore, the state can take a pre-modern form but sovereignty
cannot. This is also the position taken by Murray Forsyth in his entry on the state
in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought(Forsyth, 1987).Sovereignty as a broad concept
It is perfectly true that the concept of sovereignty was not known ‘in its fullness’
before the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Vincent, 1987: 32). Like the state, it
was only explicitly formulated in the modern period, but that does not mean that
it did not exist in earlier times. The Roman formulation – ‘whatever pleases the
prince has the force of law’ – demonstrates not only that the notion of sovereignty
existed in pre-modern periods, but that formulations like these clearly influenced
the modern conception. The idea that God exercised sovereignty rather than secular
rulers still expressed the notion of absolute and illimitable power, and although
sovereignty was more chaotic in pre-modern times, it clearly existed. One writer
has spoken of ‘the parcellized sovereignty’ of the medieval period (Hoffman, 1998:
35–6) so that those who define the state broadly, often define sovereignty broadly
as well.
Alan James argues that states have always been sovereign, and that sovereignty
is best defined as constitutional independence: a sovereign state is a state that is
legally in control of its own destiny (1986: 53). Although he is preoccupied with
states in the modern world, the notion of sovereignty applies to all states, whether
ancient, medieval or modern.24 Part 1 Classical ideas